4 posts tagged “foreign policy”

Those of us claiming that Iran was negotiable are still right. Once again, The Bush machine is lying about a current threat.

Look, this is vitally important. We could have a stable, and democratic Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq within a generation. But, in order to do that, we must be educated on the area, and we must be willing to negotiate with those we find distasteful, and we must be willing to make practical, if not absolutely moral deals. While there are no easy answers, there are answers.

Did anybody else notice that Musharraf is going to Saudi? Any idea as to why?

Ever consider that Sharif is still a player? Consider it. Let's hope that Sharif has a better memory than Bhutto.

How about did you see this article in the NY Times? Cuba has the doctors, and they're not afraid to use 'em. Can you imagine how radically America's image would change in the Middle East if we did something similar?

I guess that's too much to hope for. We even screw up the aid we give...Been to Somalia, lately?

I hear that McCain cannot even get arrested in Iowa. He did something like a month and a half campaigning there, and he's got something like 4% of the vote?  I'm a bit disgusted at that. Sure, I can't vote for McCain, ever since he traded in his integrity to polish Bush's war, but still, he's the only republican who repudiates torture, and isn't a total jackass on immigration, and....wait a minute...do you think that might be it? He's actually too moral for the Republicans in Iowa. I sincerely hope not. It would truly upset me to find out that the party of Lincoln had become the party of xenophobia, and war crimes.

I don't believe that's the case. I think the bottom line isn't the republican rank and file: it's the party brass. They're still living in the corpulent shadow of Karl rove, and still think that money, sleaze, and smear tactics are a winning combination against virtue, and integrity.

But, enough about that. Here's a thought for the republicans: become the party of Nixon, if you cannot be better than that. Nixon, when faced with a worse threat, in the form of China, and The USSR didn't start attacking them. He negotiated. He practiced the civilized art of Statecraft. He got treaties secured. Those treaties did more to see the end of the cold war than anything else that was done, including all of Reagan's reign. Reagan was lucky. Nixon actually did the work.  I could respect a party that got behind Nixon's foreign policy. I cannot respect a party that's only too eager to fall behind Bush, the Lesser's legacy.

Nawaz Sharif . Quick show of hands, who knows him? Well, he used to run Pakistan, and 60 people, as of this writing, were killed in the past 36 hours because of him. The head of the Pakistan Muslim League, I still think of him as the best hope we have, in the west, of a real secular government in Pakistan. Musharraf would continue to have dealings with the Wahhabists, and Bhutto would re-introduce the Taliban. Meanwhile, Sharif could align Pakistan with the house of Faud, in Saudi Arabia. That has drawbacks, as well. Because a Pakistan under Sharif would be a nuclear state, and would be corrupt, and democratic in name only. But, the sad, sick truth is that you won't see democracy in Pakistan for the next two decades, at least. What you could see is worse, though. For example, even though Musharraf has stepped down as Army Chief, this is only a ploy to bring in Bhutto, because Musharraf cannot hold the country together on his own. I expect that whatever the outcome of the elections, his plan is the same: to come back in as a military dictator. Towards that end, he'll make deals with just about everybody, but, in the end, it'll be a junta. Bhutto, meanwhile, in order to achieve power will align with the Taliban. Sound crazy for a woman to do? Well, keep in mind, she's worked with them before, and helped them to take over Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Sharif slowly became more secular under his two, non-consecutive, terms. He also consolidated direct power into his office, and bilked his own people under crazy voluntary tax schemes that were supposed to pay off national debts, but instead went into his own pockets. But, in going after both western allies and making peace with India, he made Pakistan a far more stable country than it is, now. I'm pretty certain that if he was allowed back into the country, he could defeat Musharraf in an open election. this is precisely why Musharraf and Bhutto have been working together, and trying to keep him out.

There are no easy or "good" answers for Pakistan, but I think that Sharif would be a better choice than many.

I probably could write four books on the Middle East. Not only did I live there for a few years, I studied the history of it for two years in college. Maybe that's why I've got a different perspective than most Americans on the topic.

For example, I have friends that think that Obama's statements concerning Pakistan were a good thing, because, gosh darn it, Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden, and we should go to the ends of the earth to hunt down that 6'5" monstrosity.

I believe that's not only an incredibly naive position, it also shows some ineptitude. I knew, when Obama made those statements that Musharraf was in talks with Benazir Bhutto. If I knew, then I fail to understand how Obama couldn't know. If you have a short memory, follow the link. I especially want you to notice her role in connection to both the Bush administration, and the Taliban. Now that those talks have held forth some fruit, with the supposition that Bhutto is in some sort of alliance with Musharraf, it's even more clear that tough talk with Musharraf is blowing smoke, at best, and cutting off our nose to spite our face, more likely. I'm not saying he's our friend. I'm saying that, if he goes, we get a much worse enemy, in that Bhutto, radcliffe education or not, clearly is power-mad, and willing to align with our enemies, while re-assuring us that she's not. Furthermore, there's the question of the balance of power between India, and Pakistan. If we were to bomb Pakistan, as Obama indicated that he'd be willing to do, most likely India would attempt to take command of their century-old rival. This would not sit well with virtually anybody, and would practically assure World War 3 by 2010. The simple fact is that, like him or not, we need Musharraf. He's the closest we're going to get to a reliable ally in Pakistan. Certainly, he's not going too strongly after Bin Laden, but if he did, he'd be deposed within a fortnight, with his own officers leading the charge, and we'd have a whole new taliban, or a whole new Saddam in place of him. Either quite literally, a taliban-influenced government would take hold, or Bhutto would turn into a similar creature to Saddam Hussein.

Then, we have Iran. Could we be following a more impractical path? i don't think so.

First let me get two elephants out of the room; First, the religious question: Yes, the Imams have waaay too much power, there. Iran is a theocratic state. However, it's a semi-theocracy, with a strong secular undercurrent, especially amoungst the nascent middle class 20-30 year olds. Shi'ia may include people like Khomeni (who was the 'big bad Muslim" before Bin Laden got the job) but it also includes people like Rumi (Sufism derives from the Shi'ia, not the Sunni). So, with help from the US, Iran could be a moderate religious state.

The second elephant is the nuclear question. Quite frankly, yes, they are enriching uranium. But nowhere near to weapons-grade. The UN just released another set of findings earlier this week that said as much. So, why is Bush beating that drum? The same reason he was pushing "WMDs" about Iraq. He thinks it will invoke enough fear that America will support any action he takes against Iran. So, why are they enriching uranium? Because they're actually decently educated and know, better than we seem to, that the end of Oil is coming, and they have no desire to become Flint, Michegan, after GM left. They don't want to go back to the stone age. So, nuclear power really is a smart move for them.

So, Did they train "insurgents" in Iraq? You bet they did. Well before we got there. Y'see, there was this little matter of a total war they were waging against Saddam. Quick, anybody, do you remember what the Iran-Iraq war was about? Yes, that's right, Jane, it was about trying to overthrow Saddam and his Sunni Ba'athist party due to their oppression of Shi'ia in Iraq.So, of course Iran trained Shi'ia in Iraq in guerilla tactics against the Sunni in Iraq. Evidently, the folks who planned our little fiasco over there never heard the maxim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If we could get beyond the notion that Islam=Evil, we might notice that Iran would make one heck of a friend.

Yes, a Shi'ite state in Iran and Iraq would means some oppression of the Sunni. But, it would also go a very long way towards a stable middle east. And if the US were on the side of Iran, we'd probably have a lot less troops needed to fight the war on "terror". It'd be in Iran's best interest to get rid of Wahhabists  and their armed friends in the Network (yes, that means Bin Laden, too)

Again, with US Support, there's decent evidence to suggest that a stronger Iran would probably end up being a more moderate state. Heck, they'd probably be more moderate than Saudi Arabia.

They probably wouldn't ever be too fond of Israel, and our misguided support of Israel, even in light of all the abuses and atrocities that Israel has created against the Palestinians is probably the biggest reason why something like what i'm outlining hasn't happened.

Now, again, this is just a brief little glimpse into a few of my thoughts concerning the middle east, but you gotta admit, it's a completely different take than what you'll get on the evening news.

I'm not saying that I'm totally right, and they're totally wrong. But my version is backed up by a little bit more than phantom studies, and wishful thinking.

Attacking Pakistan, attacking Iran, and continuing to try to go it alone in Iraq? That's worse than wishful thinking: that's a good way to kill thousands upon thousands of US soldiers for a result that's less stable, and more hostile than anything we have,now.